I beg to move Amendment 1, in Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

The purpose of the amendment is to improve the access to and the quality of information available to the public in the areas under discussion about how and where their money is spent. We have heard much in the debate about the importance of collaboration and of local authorities working closely together. In order to hide the Government’s embarrassment at ignoring their support for localism in the two areas, and the forcing on both Exeter and Norwich of a more expensive form of government than is necessary, there has been much talk about the importance of partnership working.

I have already alluded to an example where the Government have signally failed in the past few weeks. The story of their proposal to replace the regional development agencies—on the south-west coast, we had a very successful one with local economic partnerships—has been “a complete shambles”. Those are not my words; they are the words of the director general of the Confederation of British Industry. We have fallen back into the bad old ways of local rivalry and political parochialism. In virtually all the south-west, there has been a failure to come up with proposals, because such collaboration simply has not existed. Cornwall and Bristol are the only places that have had their proposals granted.

One reason why the Devon local economic partnership has been such a shambles is that Devon, Torbay and Plymouth—Torbay and Plymouth are the two unitary authorities that were granted such status by the previous Conservative Government—have given absolutely no recognition of the role played by Exeter in economic development in those areas. In fact, even worse than that, Exeter has been completely excluded from the process despite a letter from one of the Minister’s colleagues, saying that in these areas it is important that the role of cities such as Exeter that are districts, but have an important economic role, be realised.

That is an example of an area where collaboration is simply not working. Even today, one of the Minister’s old ministerial colleagues admitted that the local economic partnerships are set to be a failure in parts of England. I could have told him that. Many of my local businesses and business organisations could have told him exactly the same.

My very strong view is that one reason for that collaboration and partnership not working well is that there is no transparency whatever in how council tax payers’ money is spent. My constituents in Exeter, for example, do not know, and they cannot find out at the moment, what proportion of the council tax that they  pay and of the money that Devon gets from the Government centrally to spend on services is actually spent in Exeter.

That is a strong view, which is supported by common sense and the data that are available, and it was alluded to by the Minister in his statements earlier. He gave the game away a bit when he said that one reason why he opposed Exeter’s and Norwich’s unitary status was that their counties would lose the tax base. They would lose the milch cows, which we have long-suspected that we are in Exeter and Devon, in terms of the subsidy that our council tax payers provide to help with the costs of services in rural Devon.

You can think of a range of examples, Mr Brady, perhaps even from your own area, where the cost of keeping small village schools going is high. It is absolutely right that those schools should be kept going. In respect of the cost of road maintenance in a county the size of Devon, the amount of money that is spent proportionally in such rural areas far exceeds the amount of money that is spent in Exeter, for example. The relationship between the money that is raised from council tax and business rates in Exeter bears no relation whatever to the provision of services in that city

There is not only a financial problem, but a broader political problem. We have had several recent examples where decisions affecting Exeter have been made by Devon county council, where not only was Exeter not consulted, but no Exeter councillors were part of the decision-making process. The decision, for example, to site a waste incinerator in my Constituency was made by the county council with no Exeter city councillors having any influence, and there are many such examples.

Similarly, I understand that, when the process was ongoing in Norwich, it was found that Norwich high schools were underfunded to the tune of £12 million. On the long history of educational performance, in the case of Exeter and Norwich, our schools were rather good before local government reorganisation in 1974. Since then, looking at the trajectory, there has been an unfortunate and disappointing decline in school performance. In recent years, it has got much better—certainly in Exeter’s case—with a big improvement in the performance of our high schools thanks to the extra investment by the previous Government, reform and, of course, the capital rebuilding of all of our high schools. Those schools are still, however, significantly underfunded, as are my primary schools, when compared with schools in rural areas.

The amendment’s impact would be that we would finally know how the public’s money is spent, and I cannot see that anyone would have a problem with such information being available. It would also clear up some of the claims and counter-claims that have dogged this whole process. While I have always asserted—I think the Minister agrees—that Norwich and Exeter massively subsidise Devon and Norfolk county councils in terms of the amount of council tax that we pay compared with the amount of spending in our cities, that has been contested at times. At one stage, Devon county council tried to suggest that, because of the high number of young people with special needs—we have an internationally renowned school for the blind and for the deaf in Exeter—and the costs of funding their education and  needs as adults, it subsidises Exeter. We need to know the truth about that, and the public certainly need to know the truth.

In another recent example, we had the same situation with Exeter airport, which was an asset owned jointly by the people of Devon. When we tried to find out how much of the proceeds of the sale of Exeter airport have been spent on Exeter, the county council would not tell us. My suspicion is that it is very little. Indeed, a number of projects have recently been cancelled—for example, a new library and a redevelopment at Haven Banks on the Exe in the middle of my constituency—while a number of what one might call pet political projects in other parts of Devon have been given the go-ahead. A lot of money was spent on and, in some cases, wasted on those projects.

If the public can have an accurate view of how their council tax is spent and whether they are getting a fair deal—not just because the public have a right to be given that information, but because it would help to resolve some of these disagreements and disputes—it would aid the sort of collaboration that the Minister thinks will help to at least reclaim some of the savings that we would have made if we had moved to unitary status. How can the Government show that they are serious about making savings and about joint working and collaboration? There tend to be examples of collaboration between the two districts of Exeter and East Devon, rather than between Exeter and Devon because the relationships between those two authorities have been so damaged by Devon’s Opposition to Exeter breaking free. There cannot be that collaboration unless people know what the figures are, who is spending what where and who is paying for it.

This is not simply a matter of justice for the council tax payer in Exeter; I am sure that the council tax payers of the other Devon districts of East Devon, Torridge, West Devon, South Hams and elsewhere would like to know where their money is being spent and whether they are getting a fair share of the cake. In terms of improving those collaborative relationships and moving forward on the basis that the Minister claims he would like to, I see no reason why he should not support my amendment.

I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter in the points that he has made. I speak as somebody who became leader of a unitary authority for six years after its creation by the previous Conservative Government. There was certainly a perception in the Humberside area that all the money was being spent in the Hull area, and that nobody really knew about the accountabilities or transparencies because of the how the two-tier government was working.

Certainly a unitary council creates a greater closeness between the elected members and the people they serve, and leads to clarity and transparency about purpose and accountability. I recognise that that will not be achieved, despite the wishes of the people of Norwich and Exeter. It is important that those transparencies and accountabilities are put in place in the way in which the Amendment describes because, as my right hon. Friend says, having such clarity would assist us to create a platform for proper, honest and open collaboration. That is clearly how the Government are arguing these areas should be better served in the future. So let us  have the transparency and accountability in place, as it will allow that collaboration to have the maximum opportunity of success. Such an approach will benefit people in these localities and develop the localism to which I think we are all committed.

The reality is that the Amendment would have the effect of delaying the Bill’s coming into force. An order would have to be submitted and debated before the Bill could come into force. That is the real motive, I respectfully suggest, that underlines the amendment.

The Government are clear that the future of Norwich and Exeter must be settled once and for all. I thought that that was also the view of the hon. Member for Derby North on the Opposition front bench. We have dealt with that with the minimum of delay and it has been a tortuous process, but concluding the matter and providing clarity is a priority.

The amendment suggests that the only way to get councils to co-operate and to achieve transparency is by enshrining the matter in statute. Those are the arguments that have been put forward by the right hon. Member for Exeter and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe. I do not accept their proposition, however, that we must go down that complex and deliberately delaying route to achieve transparency.

This Government are more committed to an increase in transparency of local authorities than any other. The requirement to publish all local authority spends of over £500 online is part of the transparency agenda. That will achieve far more openness and accountability than the complicated bureaucratic rigmarole of going through a statement and orders. That is practical transparency. We are not, therefore, going to take any lessons on the transparency agenda.

I do not accept that the recognition to change the status of the city councils has impacts on the surrounding county council, which should be assumed to lead to subsidy. There are varying costs, and to disaggregate in the ill-considered manner that is proposed would not deal with such an issue. It is worth remembering that it was the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), the previous Labour Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who said that the proposals on the unitary cities did not meet the financial criteria. Our view is consistent with hers. It is the Opposition who have changed their view, so that does not hold water. It was the accounting officer of the Department who warned that the financial criteria were not being met by the proposals that the Bill seeks to reverse.

I have made it clear that we do not think that the amendment is necessary to achieve transparency—it would be a delaying tactic. It also goes against the thrust of localism as we see it. It would impose enforced collaboration rather than encourage organic collaboration from the bottom up.

Of course, the new era of collaboration requires an element of trust and there must be more accountability. I have indicated the practical steps that we have already taken to deal with that. Local authorities must work together and share information, which is already happening. Listening to some of the arguments, some people might think that the people of Exeter and Norwich are not  represented on the county council; they are—they are represented by democratically elected county councillors. As members of the county council, such people have the same rights as those who represent any other part of the county. There is no democratic deficit in that regard.

My experience has been in two-tier areas, and very often district-led county councils can work together collaboratively. I hope that that will be the case in those cities. That should not mean, however, that at the first sign of any difficulty Parliament must lay down a set of rules. We must treat local authorities and their elected members as adults. It does not mean that we should adopt a more command-and-control approach. Councils have the maturity to work together, and that is already happening.

In Norfolk, there is a joint investment plan for buses, which is signed by the county and the city councils, and First Eastern Counties buses. The shared legal service in Norfolk is made up of 70 lawyers from the county council, the city council and Great Yarmouth borough council. That will lead to real efficiencies, savings and improvements in quality of service. A procurement can be saved through that collaboration.

It is worth remembering that the city boundary in Norwich does not reflect many such opportunities. It was observed in the other place that only 14% of the planned housing and economic growth for the Norwich policy area actually lies within the city boundary, so collaboration has to take place to the benefit of all. The same applies to Exeter, where many of the great development opportunities, and the airport itself, which has been mentioned, are outside the boundary of the proposed unitary authority. To carve out unitary status on that basis would be an impediment, rather than an enhancement, to collaboration. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

The Minister says that the Amendment would delay the Bill, but the unitary bids are not going through anyway—they have been stopped by the courts. If he is right and there would be a small delay in the Bill’s coming into force, it would make no practical difference, as the Government have taken away the unitary status of Exeter and Norwich, and the counties have done that through a court challenge. A slight delay, if that is the effect of the amendment, would have no material impact.

The transparency that the Minister talks about does not happen in practice. The chief executive of my local authority sent me an e-mail about the amendment that I told him I was tabling. He pointed out that if the authority had become unitary, its spending would have become transparent and accountable; but, as it is, the two-tier system allows the county to evade clarity about exactly what citizens are getting for the large amount of council tax that Devon county council demands of them each year. Thus it evades proper accountability.

I received a similar e-mail from Norwich. I will not go into it at length, but it set out a series of examples of decisions made by the county council, such as switching off the street lights in Norwich, the proposed closure of the Silver rooms and Essex rooms and the restructuring  of the county’s children’s services. Those decisions were all made without proper consultation with Norwich, which is the most important district in the Norfolk area, and certainly the economic powerhouse of the wider Norfolk economy.

I do not accept the Minister’s point that transparency can be delivered under the current system. Devon county council failed to answer my request for simple and straightforward figures about how much money the county has spent on the sale of Exeter airport. Although the Minister talks very well about transparency and collaboration, what happens when authorities simply refuse to collaborate and to be transparent? Absolutely nothing.

As I have already mentioned, in relation to local economic partnerships, Exeter was deliberately excluded from the Devon proposals in the face of a ministerial instruction that that should not happen and that districts of Exeter’s and Norwich’s economic importance should be included in local economic partnerships. What will the Minister do, or what can I do—he might have a suggestion—when a recalcitrant county council such as Devon refuses to be transparent or to collaborate with a city such as Exeter? The Minister has no answer. While he is driving through a Bill that is taking away our localism, he hides behind a façade of localism and collaboration. That may exist in some places, but where it does not, what will he do about it? Nothing. That is a betrayal of my constituents.

The Minister says that everything is all right because county councillors represent Norwich and Exeter on the county councils, but they are a tiny minority on the authorities. Virtually every decision that affects Exeter—about schools, social services, transport and strategic economic development—is taken by a Majority of county councillors from Barnstaple, the South Hams and East Devon. They are not from Exeter and are usually of a different political persuasion from the Exeter councillors.

The Minister consistently fails to acknowledge that cities and rural shire counties have very different histories, characteristics and needs. Exeter’s needs in relation to economic development, education and poverty are very different from the sparsity needs and rural needs of Devon and Norfolk. I have already given him examples of county council decisions over which not a single Exeter city councillor had any influence, and I am told that the same has been the case in Norwich, so I do not accept his reasons for rejecting the amendment.

The Minister talks about disaggregation, as if only Exeter would be affected, but it is he who is trying to introduce this divide with Exeter and Norwich. Many rural districts in Devon would be equally interested in knowing exactly how much of the money that they give the county council actually comes back to them. This is simply a matter of openness and transparency, and he cannot tell us what happens when a recalcitrant shire county will not co-operate, is not open, and will not give Members of Parliament the information to which they are entitled.

I will not press the amendment to a Division at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on what I have said and take a more constructive approach on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.